March 2020 - Sound-open-firmware - mailman.alsa-project.org

Re: [Sound-open-firmware] [PATCH 06/14] ASoC: SOF: add a power status IPC
by Guennadi Liakhovetski 20 Mar '20

20 Mar '20

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 12:19:52PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 12:52:03PM +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 02:39:56PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 03:44:21PM +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > > > #endif > > > > + atomic_set(&sdev->reset_count, 0); > > > > dev_set_drvdata(dev, sdev); > > > > Do we really need to use atomics for this? They are hard to use > > > correctly. > > > This variable is accessed from 2 contexts: it's incremented by the SOF > > driver, when the firmware has booted and it's read by the SOF > > VirtIO backend vhost-be.c when receiving a resume request from the guest. > > Timewise the variable will only be incremented during the DSP resume / > > power up, while the VirtIO back end is waiting for the resume to complete in > > pm_runtime_get_sync(). And only after that it reads the variable. But that > > can happen on different CPUs. Whereas I think that runtime PM will sync > > caches somewhere during the process, I think it is better to access the > > variable in an SMP-safe way, e.g. using atomic operations. > > That doesn't address my concern - to repeat, my concern is that atomics > are hard to use correctly. Is there no other concurrency primitive (for > example this sounds like a completion) which can be used? No, this isn't a completion - it's a counter. I've used atomic variables before, I cannot remember seeing any difficulties with their correct use described. Do you have a pointer? Thinking about it, one problem I see is wrapping, it isn't currently handled, but that would happen after quite a few PM suspend / resume cycles... Still it can and should be fixed. But this isn't the concern, that you have? Thanks Guennadi

1 1

Re: [Sound-open-firmware] [PATCH 06/14] ASoC: SOF: add a power status IPC
by Guennadi Liakhovetski 20 Mar '20

20 Mar '20

Hi Mark, On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 02:39:56PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 03:44:21PM +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > #endif > > + atomic_set(&sdev->reset_count, 0); > > dev_set_drvdata(dev, sdev); > > Do we really need to use atomics for this? They are hard to use > correctly. This variable is accessed from 2 contexts: it's incremented by the SOF driver, when the firmware has booted and it's read by the SOF VirtIO backend vhost-be.c when receiving a resume request from the guest. Timewise the variable will only be incremented during the DSP resume / power up, while the VirtIO back end is waiting for the resume to complete in pm_runtime_get_sync(). And only after that it reads the variable. But that can happen on different CPUs. Whereas I think that runtime PM will sync caches somewhere during the process, I think it is better to access the variable in an SMP-safe way, e.g. using atomic operations. > > #include "ops.h" > > @@ -617,6 +618,9 @@ int snd_sof_run_firmware(struct snd_sof_dev *sdev) > > /* fw boot is complete. Update the active cores mask */ > > sdev->enabled_cores_mask = init_core_mask; > > > > + /* increment reset count */ > > + atomic_add(1, &sdev->reset_count); > > + > > We at no point seem to read from this reset counter? I can't figure out > from this commit what it's doing. It's used in vhost-be.c (patch 10/14). Thanks Guennadi

1 0

[Sound-open-firmware] [PATCH v2 0/2] Add generic FSL CPU DAI driver
by Daniel Baluta 16 Mar '20

16 Mar '20

From: Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta(a)nxp.com> On platforms with a DSP we need to split the resource handling between Application Processor (AP) and DSP. On platforms where the DSP doesn't have an easy access to resources, the AP will take care of configuring them. Resources handled by this generic driver are: clocks, power domains, pinctrl. Changes since v1: - added dt-bindings patch - add missing signed-off-by - do not hardcode the name of DAI driver but derive it from newly introduced dai_index property. Daniel Baluta (2): dt-bindings: sound: Add FSL CPU DAI bindings ASoC: fsl: Add generic CPU DAI driver .../devicetree/bindings/sound/fsl,dai.yaml | 97 ++++++ sound/soc/fsl/Kconfig | 8 + sound/soc/fsl/Makefile | 2 + sound/soc/fsl/fsl_dai.c | 288 ++++++++++++++++++ 4 files changed, 395 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/fsl,dai.yaml create mode 100644 sound/soc/fsl/fsl_dai.c -- 2.17.1

4 6

[Sound-open-firmware] Question about PM sleep
by Daniel Baluta 13 Mar '20

13 Mar '20

Hi Ranjani, While doing PM resume I get this warning message: root@imx8qxpmek:~# arecord -Dhw:0,0 -f S32_LE -r 48000 -c 2 z3.wav Recording WAVE 'z3.wav' : Signed 32 bit Little Endian, Rate 48000 Hz, Stereo Suspended. Trying resume. Failed. Restarting stream. Done. Any idea what could cause it? It is because my stream doesn't really support resume? Still investigating this, but sending you this email because maybe you got hit by this issue. thanks, Daniel.

3 4

[Sound-open-firmware] [PATCH 00/14] ASoC: SOF DSP virtualisation
by Guennadi Liakhovetski 13 Mar '20

13 Mar '20

This patch series extends the SOF driver to add support for DSP virtualisation to ASoC. It is built on top of VirtIO, contains a guest driver and a vhost in-kernel guest driver. This version supports a single playback and a single capture interface on the guest. The specific guest audio topology is supplied by the host from a file, specified on the QEMU command line. This solution is designed to use advanced DSP functionality, available on the host. In case no DSP is available on the host, a fall-back should be provided in the future to the pure audio virtualisation standard, currently developed by OASIS. Extensive documentation is available at [1]. Signed-off-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <guennadi.liakhovetski(a)linux.intel.com> [1] https://thesofproject.github.io/latest/developer_guides/virtualization/virt… Guennadi Liakhovetski (14): ASoC: add function parameters to enable forced path pruning ASoC: SOF: extract firmware-related operation into a function ASoC: SOF: VirtIO: make a function global vhost: convert VHOST_VSOCK_SET_RUNNING to a generic ioctl ASoC: SOF: support IPC with immediate response ASoC: SOF: add a power status IPC ASoC: SOF: add two helper lookup functions ASoC: SOF: fix uninitialised "work" with VirtIO ASoC: SOF: add a VirtIO DSP driver ASoC: SOF: add a vhost driver: sound part vhost: add an SOF DSP driver ASoC: SOF: VirtIO: check guest component IDs ASoC: SOF: VirtIO: free guest pipelines upon termination ASoC: SOF: VirtIO: enable simultaneous playback and capture drivers/vhost/Kconfig | 7 + drivers/vhost/Makefile | 5 + drivers/vhost/dsp.c | 731 ++++++++++++++++++++++ include/sound/soc-dpcm.h | 28 +- include/sound/soc-topology.h | 3 + include/sound/sof.h | 4 + include/sound/sof/header.h | 3 + include/sound/sof/topology.h | 1 + include/sound/sof/virtio.h | 206 +++++++ include/uapi/linux/vhost.h | 9 +- include/uapi/linux/vhost_types.h | 7 + include/uapi/linux/virtio_ids.h | 1 + sound/soc/soc-compress.c | 2 +- sound/soc/soc-dapm.c | 8 +- sound/soc/soc-pcm.c | 98 ++- sound/soc/sof/Kconfig | 8 + sound/soc/sof/Makefile | 8 + sound/soc/sof/core.c | 114 ++-- sound/soc/sof/ipc.c | 39 +- sound/soc/sof/loader.c | 4 + sound/soc/sof/ops.h | 10 +- sound/soc/sof/pcm.c | 17 +- sound/soc/sof/pm.c | 4 + sound/soc/sof/sof-audio.c | 33 + sound/soc/sof/sof-audio.h | 21 + sound/soc/sof/sof-priv.h | 54 ++ sound/soc/sof/topology.c | 76 ++- sound/soc/sof/vhost-be.c | 1248 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ sound/soc/sof/virtio-fe.c | 922 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 29 files changed, 3560 insertions(+), 111 deletions(-) create mode 100644 drivers/vhost/dsp.c create mode 100644 include/sound/sof/virtio.h create mode 100644 sound/soc/sof/vhost-be.c create mode 100644 sound/soc/sof/virtio-fe.c -- 1.9.3

2 15

[Sound-open-firmware] [PATCH v2 0/2] ASoC: SOF: preparatory patches
by Guennadi Liakhovetski 12 Mar '20

12 Mar '20

2 preparatory patches for the SOF virtualisation work. No functional changes, only some code refactoring and exporting of helper functions. v2: rebase, no changes otherwise. Thanks Guennadi Guennadi Liakhovetski (2): ASoC: (cosmetic) simplify dpcm_prune_paths() ASoC: export DPCM runtime update functions include/sound/soc-dpcm.h | 4 +-- sound/soc/soc-dapm.c | 8 +++--- sound/soc/soc-pcm.c | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) -- 1.9.3

3 5

Re: [Sound-open-firmware] [PATCH 0/3] [RESEND] ASoC: SOF: preparatory patches
by Guennadi Liakhovetski 12 Mar '20

12 Mar '20

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 12:15:49PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 12:45:37PM +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 12:50:56PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > How does this relate to the virtio audio spec that's currently under > > > review? > > > The spec under discussion is only for simple audio virtualisation with fixed > > roles and topologies. With our approach guests get access to advanced DSP > > capabilities. The virtualisation approach under discussion can be a fallback > > for cases when no DSP has been detected on the host. > > So they're orthogonal :/ Have you proposed your spec yet? > > > > It looks to be doing something much lower level than that. > > > I am concerned that this looks to be exposing DPCM as a virtio ABI, > > > we're trying to replace it as an internal API never mind ABI. > > > You mean that our approach works at the widget level, which is a part of the > > DPCM API? Well there is a translation layer between our ABI and DPCM. And by > > virtue of the same argument don't we already have DPCM as an ABI on the > > opposite side of SOF - in its IPC ABI? Largely this virtualisation approach > > doesn't add new interfaces, it re-uses the SOF IPC ABI, which is also one of > > its advantages. > > Please bear in mind that the page you linked to is very high level and > I've not seen the actual spec or anything. The page and your mails both > talk about DPCM so it sounds like that's a part of the interface. Let me rebase my current stack and post it here, stay tuned :-) Thanks Guennadi

1 0

Re: [Sound-open-firmware] [PATCH 0/3] [RESEND] ASoC: SOF: preparatory patches
by Guennadi Liakhovetski 12 Mar '20

12 Mar '20

Hi, On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 12:50:56PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 05:05:06PM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > To get a better picture of the directions, reviewers are invited to take a > > look at the in-depth documentation written by Guennadi since the initial > > patches were shared. This documentation was reviewed by Liam and me and is > > really required to understand the concepts: > > > https://thesofproject.github.io/latest/developer_guides/virtualization/virt… > > How does this relate to the virtio audio spec that's currently under > review? The spec under discussion is only for simple audio virtualisation with fixed roles and topologies. With our approach guests get access to advanced DSP capabilities. The virtualisation approach under discussion can be a fallback for cases when no DSP has been detected on the host. > It looks to be doing something much lower level than that. > I am concerned that this looks to be exposing DPCM as a virtio ABI, > we're trying to replace it as an internal API never mind ABI. You mean that our approach works at the widget level, which is a part of the DPCM API? Well there is a translation layer between our ABI and DPCM. And by virtue of the same argument don't we already have DPCM as an ABI on the opposite side of SOF - in its IPC ABI? Largely this virtualisation approach doesn't add new interfaces, it re-uses the SOF IPC ABI, which is also one of its advantages. Thanks Guennadi

1 0

Re: [Sound-open-firmware] [PATCH 2/3] ASoC: add function parameters to enable forced path pruning
by Guennadi Liakhovetski 11 Mar '20

11 Mar '20

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:41:02PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 01:36:17PM +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:25:31PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > It's still not clear to me what the issue is here. If something is > > > making a modification to the graph which needs a recheck or update I'd > > > expect that these things happen along with that modification. I don't > > > understand what you're saying about not being able to reproduce > > > scenarios or adding things "on top". > > > VirtIO support. That function currently exists in the kernel, but I don't > > have a test-case to verify its work, to see it called and actually perform > > the pruning. So I don't know how it is supposed to work. And because of > > that I cannot fix my VirtIO use case to use that function properly, without > > forcing it with an additional parameter. > > I think you need to include this with your VirtIO series. That was also my original intention, personally I also would find it difficult to review this kind of work without context. So, would you prefer me to drop this series completely and re-send it with the whole series or should I just drop #2 and resend #1 and #3? Thanks Guennadi

1 0

[Sound-open-firmware] SOF Versioning and stable releases
by Daniel Baluta 11 Mar '20

11 Mar '20

Hi Liam, What is the current stable release? And what is the release versioning scheme. I think it is 1.4-stable right? We plan to create a stable branch for imx. Maybe 1.4-stable-imx and put it into our internal Yocto release. Also, for sof-bin release repo how we will push the binaries? I mean just compile it by yourself and push it there. Or we let a travis build to do the job so that we can also have the compile log.

1 0